X? Y?

106.6K posts

X? Y? banner
X? Y?

X? Y?

@brian_warrick

Affordabepsteinility! Invade Venezuepsteinla! I refuse to look away. Silent=Complicit.

Katılım Eylül 2013
5.8K Takip Edilen1.7K Takipçiler
X? Y? retweetledi
ᗰᗩƳᖇᗩ
ᗰᗩƳᖇᗩ@LePapillonBlu2·
If true… how’s this being allowed?
English
462
3.3K
7.5K
64.5K
X? Y? retweetledi
Derek Thompson
Derek Thompson@DKThomp·
"Late Kakistocracy" is that phase of democratic decline where the regime starts running out of ppl who will work for it, and so the folks who aren't qualified for their current positions are promoted to even larger positions for which they are even more unqualified
Derek Thompson tweet media
English
106
1.4K
4.2K
133.8K
X? Y? retweetledi
Dave Troy
Dave Troy@davetroy·
This isn’t “Trumpism” so much as “sistema” as practiced in the Putin regime. This will persist through the American siloviki even after Trump is dead. blogs.ucl.ac.uk/ssees/2013/03/…
English
0
128
285
8.1K
X? Y? retweetledi
Jack
Jack@jackcoder0·
Two economists just published a mathematical proof that AI will destroy the economy. Not might. Not could. Will — if nothing changes. The paper is called "The AI Layoff Trap." Published March 2, 2026. Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. Boston University. Peer reviewed. Mathematically modeled. The conclusion is one sentence. "At the limit, firms automate their way to boundless productivity and zero demand." An economy that produces everything. And sells it to nobody. Here is how you get there. A company fires 500 workers and replaces them with AI. A competitor fires 700 to keep up. Another fires 1,000. Every company is behaving rationally. Every company is following the incentives correctly. And every company is building a trap for itself. Because the workers who were fired were also customers. When they lose their jobs faster than the economy can absorb them, they stop spending. Consumer demand falls. Companies respond by cutting costs — which means automating more workers — which means less spending — which means more falling demand — which means more automation. The loop has no natural exit. The researchers tested every proposed solution. Universal basic income. Capital income taxes. Worker equity participation. Upskilling programs. Corporate coordination agreements. Every single one failed in the model. The only intervention that worked: a Pigouvian automation tax — a per-task levy charged every time a company replaces a human with AI, forcing them to price in the demand they are destroying before they pull the trigger. No government has implemented this. No major economy is seriously discussing it. Meanwhile the numbers are already tracking the curve. 100,000 tech workers laid off in 2025. 92,000 more in the first months of 2026. Jack Dorsey fired half of Block's workforce and said publicly: "Within the next year, the majority of companies will reach the same conclusion." Nobody is doing anything wrong. Companies are following their incentives perfectly. That is exactly the problem. Rational behavior. At scale. Simultaneously. With no mechanism to stop it. Two economists built the math. The math leads to one place. Source: Falk & Tsoukalas · Wharton School + Boston University ·
Jack tweet media
English
1.2K
5.6K
12.6K
1.6M
X? Y?
X? Y?@brian_warrick·
Ahhh, the famous Russian soul.
Kate from Kharkiv@BohuslavskaKate

SEN. KELLY: I've spent 15 years working with Russian cosmonauts. Took me 5 years to understand what motivated them. Number one, appearance that they were in charge of something. Two, who to blame when something goes wrong. Three, what to steal today. Only four, mission success. I think as Ukrainians, as Americans, as Brits, we're often motivated by mission success. You want organization you work for to be successful, you want your country to be successful, you want British Army to be successful, I want US Navy to be successful, I want NASA to be successful. That wasn't my experience with Russian cosmonauts I worked with. I'm talking about dozens of people that I knew well, what motivated them when they went to work every day. At the top of the list was that they really cared about the appearance that they were in charge of something, not mission success. Now, whether they were really actually in charge of it or not didn't matter so much. Mission success wasn't even number two. Number two on the list, I would say, was whether they knew who to blame when something went wrong, like placing the blame. Russians have a position in their Mission Control Center which is called "mistakes officer." When a Russian cosmonaut makes a mistake, they keep track of it and they take money out of their pay. I would say the third thing, even before mission success, was what am I going to steal from my employer today. And we would talk about that. They were very open about this. And apparently there's a saying in Russian that if you didn't steal something at work that day, you did not have a good day. For us, and I think everybody in this room here, mission success is the thing that matters more than anything else. And for the Russians I worked with, it might have been number four on the list. So I actually was not that surprised about their incompetence.

English
0
0
0
1
X? Y? retweetledi
The Tennessee Holler
The Tennessee Holler@TheTNHoller·
CONAN AT HARVARD: “No university in our nation has produced more Nobel laureates or white collar criminals… so whether you choose good or evil, know that you are among the very best.”
English
200
7.6K
90K
2.6M
X? Y? retweetledi
Donald Tusk
Donald Tusk@donaldtusk·
Poland, Baltic states, now Romania. More and more Russian provocations. Yesterday the former president @MedvedevRussiaE said that the peaceful sleep of the EU citizens is over. Everyone in NATO should finally start taking these facts and words seriously.
English
2.3K
4K
16.5K
542.6K
X? Y? retweetledi
Michael Carpenter
Michael Carpenter@mikercarpenter·
Alliances founded solely on “interests,” and not values, will inevitably be transient and weak. That’s why NATO and the EU are explicitly founded on shared values. Why we support ROK not DPRK, Ukraine not Russia, and the Quad not China. This is a big departure from US history.
Under Secretary of War Elbridge Colby@USWPColby

1/ Secretary Hegseth just delivered a seminal articulation of America’s strategy in the Pacific at the Shangri-La Dialogue – a “return to realism for the most consequential region in the world: the Pacific.” 1/

English
11
35
110
27.5K
X? Y? retweetledi
Brian Allen
Brian Allen@allenanalysis·
🚨 HOLY SHIT. CNN just cited a New York Times estimate saying Trump has reportedly profited $1.4 BILLION from the presidency. And the wildest part? One panelist said Trump made MORE MONEY in the last year than in the rest of his life combined. Think about that.
English
1.5K
17.3K
48K
1.1M
X? Y? retweetledi